Every club starts with a clean sheet - except West Coast

[chrsco]

Just stumbled across this article from Patrick Smith, which says that there was a new code of conduct entered into by all clubs at last week's executives meeting.

Here's the link http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23551520-12270,00.html

Basically every team starts with a clean sheet, yes, you guessed it, even the injunction club, everyone EXCEPT the Eagles. We still have the charge of bringing the game into disrepute hanging over our heads, and therefore the possibilities of losing draft picks etc. if we step out of line again.

Now why do our board and management accept this crap? Also for Patrick to say they were a rabble, well the board / management have got to start standing up for the club against these types of aspersions.

[Lynch takes a mark]

Good article

[Prem87]

Top read. Watch the double standards as Hawthorn get busted eventually. The AFL have treated us like lambs to the slaughter.

[Embers]

Top read. Watch the double standards as Hawthorn get busted eventually. The AFL have treated us like lambs to the slaughter.

IMO its time we fight back. The AFL rely on the Eagles more then anyone can ever imagine. Id love to see fans organise some form of protest. They do in other sporting codes all around the world and they dont get treated as badly as we do

[WCE57]

God! We are just continually getting walk-over. The really sad thing is on what I am seeing at the moment is that we are not going to stand-up to this crap.

[wce0632]

Dare I say it, Good Article by Patrick Smith :o.

and to the AFL: What the ____ are you playing at?

it's only a matter of time before another club or two get found out. I doubt they'll get as much as crap as we have and no doubt their 'clean slate' will help them out with penalties and investigations etc. No wonder the boys didn't want to start a melee or anything like that on the weekend - the club would get penalised for thuggery. The worst thing is that we can't do anything, the club is stuck, what can it do? If they do something they'll get into the AFL's bad books even further and no doubt A.D will do something about that.

Okay, so we've gotten off lightly so far but how about all the other teams that are still sweeping all their dirty secrets under the carpet? What about all the other teams that have a player in trouble at least once a year (Carlton/Fev)? At least WCE is doing something about it, so much so that other clubs are calling up WCE to see how they've managed it. The club has complied with everything the AFL has asked of them, including sacking Cousins and Chick not to mention the various trades we've completed over the last few years. I just don't see how it is fair. If something ridiculously 'damning' was revealed in the investigation(s), sanctions would have followed. The whole thing is just annoying and confusing.

Players should start to be more responsible for their own actions, not the clubs. As someone said on the main board, Cousins, Gardiner and Chick have all left the club but whilst they start off with a clean slate at another club, for years to come wce will still be getting penalised because of the individuals actions - despite the fact that they aren't involved with the club anymore.

[SOSBenny]

it just makes me wanna run down the street and mention said victorian teams, said players names... :mad:

[J-Train78]

Wow. cant believe that patrick smith wrote a fair article involving west coast. he usually crucifies us

anyway,

i have heard whispers before about problems at hawthorn fc. does anyone know much about it?

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Stop whinging.

So far, we haven't been officially punished for anything that's happened, and there's a pretty bloody long list of indiscretions.

To date, we've gotten off scott-free.

You people are complaining because there's a chance that if anything else dodgy happens, we might actually get more than a talking-to.

[FiveStrings]

Stop whinging.

So far, we haven't been officially punished for anything that's happened, and there's a pretty bloody long list of indiscretions.

To date, we've gotten off scott-free.

You people are complaining because there's a chance that if anything else dodgy happens, we might actually get more than a talking-to.

That's not why I'm complaining at all. We don't deserve to start with a clean slate. I agree.

The problem is, there are other clubs out there with fairly substantial problems too. Why do they get a clean slate?

[Keyser Soze]

I have to say that was a pretty good read.

Doesn't excuse what we've done but gives a good analysis of the effect our public flagellation has had on the playing group.

[Arcadion]

It's stuff like this from the AFL, the double standards, the vitriol spewed out by Walls, Wilson, etc, the constant attention on our losses by the media and other supporters really makes me wonder.

Just how much did us winning the 2006 flag hurt them all?

[bigburger]

Very brave for a Journo to go against the easier and more normal road like this.

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The problem is, there are other clubs out there with fairly substantial problems too. Why do they get a clean slate?Which clubs are you talking about?

What evidence exists of those problems? Rumours are not evidence.

I don't think any other club quite matches our pile of indiscretions.

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Very brave for a Journo to go against the easier and more normal road like this.Hardly.

Patrick Smith's stock-in-trade is blasting the AFL.

Even throughout the whole Cousins saga, his target was rarely the West Coast Eagles as much as it was the AFL's handling of the situation and its three-strikes policy.

You shouldn't be so quick to ascribe bravery to Patrick Smith. He's just banging his favourite drum.

[BlueandGoldforever]

It has been alleged that one Melbourne club has up to seven players in drug rehabilitation. Now, if it is true, that is a lot more than West Coast. Yet, it hasn't been reported nor has that club faced any kind of pressure but I have heard it from more than one source.

[arfadunger]

Time to stop bowing to the AFL, no wonder the team is struggling. They would have absolutely no confidence in the administration backing any of the players if something goes awry. A very poor situation for employer to be in, in relation to a group of players (employees) who have represented their club so admirably on the field over a number of years.

[West Coast 06]

Which clubs are you talking about?

What evidence exists of those problems? Rumours are not evidence.

I don't think any other club quite matches our pile of indiscretions.
You know very well which club it is, as does everyone else in the AFL community.

Our club doesn't have seven players on its list that have tested positive to drugs, two of which have tested posistive twice and are seeking treatment in a drug addiction programme.

I'll tell you straight up that the AFL doesn't take out court injunctions over rumours. It is fact.

West Coast has moved on Chick, Cousins and Gardiner. Educated our current players to a point of ridiculousness and yet still has an axe over their heads while every other club gets to start with a clean slate? Yeah, sounds fair to me.:rolleyes:

[wce4premiership]

That's bs.

I hate the afl.

[flyinghi64]

Makes a lot of points that are close to the mark.
My big question is would the AFL do to Collingwood, Essendon, Sydney, Brisbane etc what they have done to the Eagles ?
If they tried how far would they get ?
I'd say no and not far.

[Shanii]

The reason is obvious but so debilitating. The West Coast playing group - and officials - have been so vilified that they have lost their confidence, sense of purpose and pride. With one error - on or off the field - enough to critically wound the club, the players have set themselves artificial boundaries. Witness the reaction to Hall's haymaker. Witness the lack of a response from Eagles officials and that the only sense of indignation came from past chairman Murray McHenry who ruled the club a decade ago. He railed at the unfairness of Hall's seven-week ban compared to Cousins' 12-month suspension.
The players are unconsciously playing within themselves, their natural spirit restricted by public opinion and an ever-threatening, ever-watchful AFL. Coaches and officials have tried to cajole the players out of their diffidence, tried to bully them. But a club's psyche has been shattered, its self-belief smothered, its esprit de corps stifled.


Whilst he has waffled on here in his usual dramatic style, I think he's pretty spot on.
But as others have mentioned, it's more another chance for him to have a crack at AFL, than argue fairness for the eagles.

[Crimson King]

Man has earnt some respect in my book. Top article.:thumbsu:

[Belgarion]

Wow. cant believe that patrick smith wrote a fair article involving west coast. he usually crucifies us anyway,


I often disagree with many things that Patrick Smith says, but one thing I must admit he has the same attitude towards all clubs. Generally speaking he takes the high moral road.

Anyone who reads his columns in The Australian would have read recenttly many columns against Carlton's president who he calls "the price fixer."

Belgarion

[imright]

Noone has villified the Eagles as much as Patrick Smith. Patrick Smith has said on the radio that he wanted the Eagles to be fined 1 million dollars and draft picks taken away from them because they were so evil.

The AFL's theatrical biatch slapping of the Eagles is a knee jerk reaction to the rantings of the self proclaimed moral police like media "personalities" Patrick Smith. He and his like are why the AFL are treating the club like a naughty school kid, hypocritical tosser.

[Prolix]

I'd like to say this surprises me in an un-ironic way...

[Gunnar Longshanks]

You know very well which club it is, as does everyone else in the AFL community.Oh, so there's just one club now?

I thought you were saying there were a few.

West Coast has moved on Chick, Cousins and Gardiner. Educated our current players to a point of ridiculousness and yet still has an axe over their heads while every other club gets to start with a clean slate? Yeah, sounds fair to me.:rolleyes:Our list of documented off-field indiscretions still outweighs those of other clubs.

I'm not saying other clubs don't have issues, but ours have been made public and that has been damaging. It's not surprising that we would be on a tighter leash.

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Noone has villified the Eagles as much as Patrick Smith. Disagree.

Smith's target throughout has been the AFL and its policies.

We were collateral damage.

When he was calling for us to be hammered, he was actually criticising the AFL for not being proactive enough.

It might seem like he was going after the Eagles, but the AFL was actually his main target.

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The reason is obvious but so debilitating. The West Coast playing group - and officials - have been so vilified that they have lost their confidence, sense of purpose and pride. With one error - on or off the field - enough to critically wound the club, the players have set themselves artificial boundaries. Witness the reaction to Hall's haymaker. Witness the lack of a response from Eagles officials and that the only sense of indignation came from past chairman Murray McHenry who ruled the club a decade ago. He railed at the unfairness of Hall's seven-week ban compared to Cousins' 12-month suspension.
The players are unconsciously playing within themselves, their natural spirit restricted by public opinion and an ever-threatening, ever-watchful AFL. Coaches and officials have tried to cajole the players out of their diffidence, tried to bully them. But a club's psyche has been shattered, its self-belief smothered, its esprit de corps stifled.This is complete bollocks.

He's seizing on one example - the reaction to Hall's punch - and extrapolating that into an overarching diagnosis of the entire club's psychology.

Absolute BS.

I can't believe people swallow this shit.

[Black Thunder]

demetriou can go ____ himself anyway.

he's the worst commissioner the afl has ever had, and he's legacy will be one that is looked over as the worst period the afl has had since expansion, possibly ever (i don't know, i really wouldn't have the slightest idea what the feelings were like amongst supporters back in the 60's, 70's, 80's and earlier).

he points consistently to crowds and increased tv revenue as proof the game is in better hands than it ever has been. he's conveniently ignores a growing population**and an exceptionally strong economy as well as a worldwide increase in the amount of money in sport and communication (TV) - those 3 factors are far more responsible for he AFL's current financial success than Andrew Demetriou.

**I'm actually pretty sure, that the % increase in population is actually a fair bit higher than the % increase in AFL crowds... admittedly though there are many variable that go into determining how much effect the former should have on the latter and some would so there is no effect.

[Black Thunder]

i really hope that we win the flag before demetriou gets booted out of his job for being. just to see the look on his fat face.

and if we don't win it, i'd love for it to be the kangaroos.

[chrsco]

This is complete bollocks.

He's seizing on one example - the reaction to Hall's punch - and extrapolating that into an overarching diagnosis of the entire club's psychology.

Absolute BS.

I can't believe people swallow this shit.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments on this point GL, that is not the point. The point is that every other club gets to start afresh, we do not and we will not stand up to them, which we should. And don't come back at me with but we were the bad boys, because I can tell you we know definitely 1 club is as bad and others probably are. That's what's annoying me, the club just bows and says yes we deserve it!

[West Coast 06]

Oh, so there's just one club now?

I thought you were saying there were a few.Actually I only made the one post, so no, I didn't say there were a few at all.

Our list of documented off-field indiscretions still outweighs those of other clubs.

I'm not saying other clubs don't have issues, but ours have been made public and that has been damaging. It's not surprising that we would be on a tighter leash.
I dont know, I think Collingwood would give us a run for our money. They have had a lot of incidents over the last couple of years.

Hawthorn has the same problems as we did. Only all of their problems are still playing football for them.

We really should be the first club to start with a clean slate, as we are the only club who has had an AFL inquiry looking at the club and so they actually know what has gone on there and what has been done about it. What goes on at other clubs they really wouldn't know.

We have moved on players who did not fit the image the AFL wants us to project, despite it being a massive set back to our club on field.

We have educated our players as to what is acceptable behaviour and how to handle and avoid situations that could get them into trouble. No other club has done this.

Maybe they should have an inquiry into all of the other clubs as well, I bet we are not as bad as we are made out to be after all in comparison. Then all the other clubs can follow our example with player education. Then any players that do not fit the AFL's model of player behaviour can be delisted. Its only fair, we had to.

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I dont know, I think Collingwood would give us a run for our money. They have had a lot of incidents over the last couple of years.

Hawthorn has the same problems as we did. Only all of their problems are still playing football for them.We had 35 separate documented incidents involving 13 different players.

We're a fair way out in front when it comes to getting our noses dirty. I think it is entirely unsurprising that the AFL refuses to give us a clean slate. Especially when you consider that we've never actually been formally punished for anything.

People keep crying about Demetriou, but we've never been sanctioned by the AFL.

We have moved on players who did not fit the image the AFL wants us to project, despite it being a massive set back to our club on field.We moved on Cousins, but I don't think we or the league had much of a choice there. He messed up too many times. I don't think we can really blame the league for Cousins' exit.

Which other losses contributed to the "massive set-back"?

Please don't tell me you're talking about Gardiner and Edwards.

We have educated our players as to what is acceptable behaviour and how to handle and avoid situations that could get them into trouble. No other club has done this.Lip service.

"Don't fight. Don't do drugs."

I bet it has been a supremely edifying experience for all the lads.

Maybe they should have an inquiry into all of the other clubs as well, I bet we are not as bad as we are made out to be after all in comparison. Then all the other clubs can follow our example with player education. Then any players that do not fit the AFL's model of player behaviour can be delisted. Its only fair, we had to.I don't doubt that other clubs have their own issues.

But when a club's issues bubble over so publicly, that club should expect to get whacked. Especially when that club boasts 35 separate incidents including 13 different players.

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Whilst I agree with your sentiments on this point GL, that is not the point. The point is that every other club gets to start afresh, we do not and we will not stand up to them, which we should. And don't come back at me with but we were the bad boys, because I can tell you we know definitely 1 club is as bad and others probably are. That's what's annoying me, the club just bows and says yes we deserve it!Again, we're yet to be formally punished for anything.

If we had lost draft picks, but still had the threat of further sanctions hanging over our heads, your irritation would be justified. In that situation, it would be fair to argue that we've copped our whack and should not be punished further.

But we've never copped our whack. We've never been punished by the league.

So it would be unreasonable to expect the league to say, "although we've never punished you, you know you're on notice - but don't worry, here's a clean slate."

[Obeanie1]

How interesting was Joey Johns last night.

Named as the best half back in league history Hall of Fame.

Feels both players, fans, his club and the NRL have forgiven him for his drug abuse throughout his career.

Newcastle as a club were never really put on the blow torch by anyone, plently of high profile players, NLR officials and media knew what he was doing but ingnored it.

Its increadible how when your a favourite son of the games home state and a state rep you don't get crucified for making the mistake in using drugs.

I'm not excussing what Cousins and the Eagles have done (didn't do) but the double standards on how much the public reaction and how the games governing body handles things like this is down right dissapointing.

The sooned the Eagles take on the Us versus THEM mentality again the better. Yes we acknowledge SOME people at the club made mistakes and we will learn from that and never make those mistakes again BUT we should also acknowledge that the media, opposition supporters and even to some extent the AFL don't like us because of our success, will never like us and will do anything to drag us down.

We have faced this before and beaten them, its time we said jam your double standards where thye sun don't shine we'r here to play footy and kick your butts and that it simple.:D

[Xsess]

We had 35 separate documented incidents involving 13 different players.

We're a fair way out in front when it comes to getting our noses dirty. I think it is entirely unsurprising that the AFL refuses to give us a clean slate. Especially when you consider that we've never actually been formally punished for anything.

People keep crying about Demetriou, but we've never been sanctioned by the AFL.

We moved on Cousins, but I don't think we or the league had much of a choice there. He messed up too many times. I don't think we can really blame the league for Cousins' exit.

Which other losses contributed to the "massive set-back"?

Please don't tell me you're talking about Gardiner and Edwards.

Lip service.

"Don't fight. Don't do drugs."

I bet it has been a supremely edifying experience for all the lads.

I don't doubt that other clubs have their own issues.

But when a club's issues bubble over so publicly, that club should expect to get whacked. Especially when that club boasts 35 separate incidents including 13 different players.

People like you keeping the score - regardless of the content of those so called incidents is the reason the AFL is able to justify its persecution of the club.

You love quoting the magic 35 "incidents" - in doing so giving the same degree of relevence to each of them.

Of the 35 incidents how many are chickenfeed - such as swearing or being drunk in a public place after celebrating a GF win , and have only been documented because we are the eagles? In Melbourne they would - as they should - have been treated with the contempt they deserve, and would'nt have even got onto the radar.

Many more are heresay.

In order of severity how do "any" of the 35 incidents compare with say Didaks gun toting joyride with a murderer, or any of Farmer assaults, or even the unnamed 7's documented issues?

This is just one area where your whole argument falls into a steaming pile of dog cr** and is also where the AFL have been exposed for their complete lack of parity. Also to say we have not been punished is laughable. We sacked and otherwise let go a number of key players on the basis of this unnamed threat. Our administration is in a dither - white anting our playing group from the inside. Any player issue - real or imagined - is being punished ruthlessly by these weak bastards. Our playing performance has suffered - probably for years.

We dont need so called supporters like you.

[costanza]

...You love quoting the magic 35 "incidents" - in doing so giving the same degree of relevence to each of them....


Bingo! We have a 'tally' that can be trotted out at any time. Who is doing the count on Collingwood? St Kilda? Brisbane? Carlton?...These would all be up there with assaults, urinating in public etc.

Do they count, as the papers do all the time, Kerr's assault charges and then subsequent fines / aquittals as seperate incidents? (i see the irony in the plural). Do they count Embley / Chicks two altercations as 2 or as an extended 1 as it should. Do they count the Aker and Braun saga?

Some posters tried to come up with a figure and including say 'letting a dog poo on a neighbours lawn' could only get 22. This including Woosha's spastic journalists quote and Beau and the goldfish.

We are the only club in history to have a guy fined for saying an expletive that is heard through the ground mic's every 5 seconds.!!!

We have heard that Fev and Kane's waterworks are nothing. Fev and Steve Johnson's speeding not a prob. So how many of these 35 (I thought it was 37? Maybe they dropped that foodfight in Margaret River:D) can be discounted as very minor? I would say more than half. Then compare 18 to Fevola, Tarrant and Gherig alone and you may be getting somewhere.

[West Coast 06]

We had 35 separate documented incidents involving 13 different players.

We're a fair way out in front when it comes to getting our noses dirty. I think it is entirely unsurprising that the AFL refuses to give us a clean slate. Especially when you consider that we've never actually been formally punished for anything.Thirty five incidents? How many of them are actually anything that warrant even being listed as an incident?

Beau Waters eating a goldfish? Braun swearing on TV? Cousins being locked up for being drunk in a public place?

The reason they can point so gleefully at our 35 incidents and hold those over our heads is because we are the only club to have had an inquiry into their behaviour.

Do an inquiry into the other clubs as well. I'm sure rapes, beatings, assults and drug use are far more serious than eating a team mates goldfish, but because the AFL doesn't want to know about what the other clubs are up to we have a number alotted to our misdemeaners so as to make out we are far worse than any other club. That is simply inaccurate.

Please bear in mind that these incidents have also stretched over a seven year period, its not like they all happened last week.

We have delisted, traded or sacked Cousins, Chick, Edwards, Gardiner, which means we have actually moved on the bulk of the players who have had serious midemeaners within the club and who made up the bulk of the 35 incidents.
I don't doubt that other clubs have their own issues.

But when a club's issues bubble over so publicly, that club should expect to get whacked. Especially when that club boasts 35 separate incidents including 13 different players.
The clubs issues have bubbled over so publically because they are based in a two team town, a town that is obsessed with football and footballers, and because we are a large and successful club. Although there has been some serious incidences, there has also been quite a few that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow if we were a Victorian club.

We know injunction club has seven players up to no good with out an inquiry and that is just in the last year, not the last seven.

[Gunnar Longshanks]

People like you keeping the score - regardless of the content of those so called incidents is the reason the AFL is able to justify its persecution of the club.

You love quoting the magic 35 "incidents" - in doing so giving the same degree of relevence to each of them.

Of the 35 incidents how many are chickenfeed - such as swearing or being drunk in a public place after celebrating a GF win , and have only been documented because we are the eagles? In Melbourne they would - as they should - have been treated with the contempt they deserve, and would'nt have even got onto the radar.

Many more are heresay.No - they aren't.

They're documented. That was the whole point of the inquiry.

In order of severity how do "any" of the 35 incidents compare with say Didaks gun toting joyride with a murderer, or any of Farmer assaults, or even the unnamed 7's documented issues?What exactly did Didak do wrong in that instance?

Farmer's assaults are undoubtedly at the more serious end of the spectrum. But ultimately our list of indiscretions is still longer than Freo's, and that's why we're in the crosshairs.

This is just one area where your whole argument falls into a steaming pile of dog cr** You actually have to demonstrate that. Just saying it is inadequate.

We sacked and otherwise let go a number of key players on the basis of this unnamed threat. Our administration is in a dither - white anting our playing group from the inside. Any player issue - real or imagined - is being punished ruthlessly by these weak bastards. Our playing performance has suffered - probably for years. We sacked Cousins - are you saying we shouldn't have?

Who are the other "key players"?

We dont need so called supporters like you.
You're not the arbiter of that.

Not my fault if you can't handle the truth.

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Thirty five incidents? How many of them are actually anything that warrant even being listed as an incident?

Beau Waters eating a goldfish? Braun swearing on TV? Cousins being locked up for being drunk in a public place?

The reason they can point so gleefully at our 35 incidents and hold those over our heads is because we are the only club to have had an inquiry into their behaviour.

Do an inquiry into the other clubs as well. I'm sure rapes, beatings, assults and drug use are far more serious than eating a team mates goldfish, but because the AFL doesn't want to know about what the other clubs are up to we have a number alotted to our misdemeaners so as to make out we are far worse than any other club. That is simply inaccurate.

Please bear in mind that these incidents have also stretched over a seven year period, its not like they all happened last week.

We have delisted, traded or sacked Cousins, Chick, Edwards, Gardiner, which means we have actually moved on the bulk of the players who have had serious midemeaners within the club and who made up the bulk of the 35 incidents.
The clubs issues have bubbled over so publically because they are based in a two team town, a town that is obsessed with football and footballers, and because we are a large and successful club. Although there has been some serious incidences, there has also been quite a few that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow if we were a Victorian club.

We know injunction club has seven players up to no good with out an inquiry and that is just in the last year, not the last seven.That's all well and good. Many of the incidents are trivial. But there are plenty that aren't, and on that score alone we have other clubs covered.

The bottom line remains that WC have never received any formal punishment. We can't complain about harsh treatment from the league when they've never whacked us.

We're on notice, but we've not yet received any official sanction from the league. That's indisputable.

So it makes no sense for the league to then give us a clean slate.

[Isandula]

It is unfortunate to some, but have to say GL actually has raised some good points and is making sense. You know it would be strange and silly to have an inquiry then turn around and say the slate is clean :confused:

[West Coast 06]

That's all well and good. Many of the incidents are trivial. But there are plenty that aren't, and on that score alone we have other clubs covered.

The bottom line remains that WC have never received any formal punishment. We can't complain about harsh treatment from the league when they've never whacked us.

We're on notice, but we've not yet received any official sanction from the league. That's indisputable.

So it makes no sense for the league to then give us a clean slate.
I put it to you that although the AFL have never "whacked us" they have also not offered us the same level of protection as they have given other clubs.

In response to our honesty in disclosing that Cousins has a drug problem, one that was never detected by the AFLs own drug testing, we get an inquiry into the club and an expectation that we will show what we are doing about it. Cousins is banned from playing the game. Fair enough.

In response to the AFL detecting seven players with positive drug tests in another club, two of those double positives and seeking drug rehab treatment, it goes to court in order to protect the club and players involved from being named publically.

Now call me old fashioned, but that is a double standard.

All I am saying is if Dimwit says everyone gets a clean slate there should be no exceptions. If not, then if Hawthorn or Collingwood or West Coast players cross the lines set out in the code of conduct, then the relevant past should be taken into consideration. Equal treatment for all clubs.